Please inform us of Mr. Radford's qualifications and background. Does he have a PhD in a discipline of science? Or is he just another liberal arts major who has absolutely no concept and grasp of fundamental scientific principles?

3:11 pm April 14, 2009

Peter Taglia wrote :

Greenpeace's report on coal and carbon sequestration, called "False Hope" is written by seven authors, four of which have PhDs. While I personally think that carbon capture and storage warrants investments and we should quickly establish some large-scale projects to determine its costs and viability, the report by Greenpeace is very well written and referenced. It may make some people happy to ignore groups they disagree with and offer ad hominem attacks but do not assume that non-profits cannot offer technical depth. Another good non-governmental analysis of "clean coal" is from the Union of Concerned Scientists and they take a somewhat less pessimistic view than Greenpeace.

3:29 pm April 14, 2009

HTH. wrote :

Without a background and education in science how is one to sift through all of the *junk science* out there. Just because a scientist says something, does not a) mean it's true and b) mean's its scientifically acceptable conclusion.

It's too bad that the earth's warming has slowed down and perhaps even reversed course. What will Greenpeace do to stop global cooling if that has started as some scientists claim?

4:20 pm April 14, 2009

Wisco wrote :

I have it on good authority that the world's tooth fairies will have no part in solving global warming. They want us to know that we're on our own on this one.

4:46 pm April 14, 2009

jchew wrote :

I agree clean coal is a near-term pipe dream, but so is a "25% to 40% cut in greenhouse-gas emissions below 1990 levels" without nuclear energy. Where is the power coming from? Going to read their Energy Revolution later, but I am very skeptical...

5:29 pm April 14, 2009

Joshua wrote :

It's interesting he would fault ExxonMobile for their "fight to the death," considering he is doing his best to use the power of the state to legislate Exxon out of existence, while Exxon's fight stays in the real world, against campaigns of misinformation and cries for government control of business.

Furthermore, if Nuclear power can't deal with the Waste, or get private Financing, then it's not really a viable technology.

Not to mention the current cost of US Nuclear anti-proliferation is many times larger than what the total of federal US gov spends on energy. (About 9000 million dollars a year, versus 14 million a year for solar or geothermal)

6:57 pm April 14, 2009

Randy wrote :

jchew:

Summary of the report: The power is coming from LOTS of renewables (mixture of wind, solar PV, solar thermal, biomass, hydro, geothermal, and a smidgen of ocean energy). Some natural gas generation would be retained during the transition. No coal, nuclear, or fuel oil generation by 2050. Decentralization of generation is emphasized so as to avoid the need for new transmission lines (as I read it). Intermittency of sources is not discussed.

As an electrical power engineer, I view this report as comedy gold.

7:21 pm April 14, 2009

Kit P wrote :

Perter T you do know that PhDs do not produce energy, they write reports. Greenpeace does not produce energy they produce fund raisers.

Perter T you need to install your own solar panels on your own roof. Do not fall on you own head. If you want me to install panels on your roof to make your electricity, I will tell you to go play in your sand box with your magic wand and your PhDs.

I think renewable energy is great but what would Greenpeace know?

7:55 pm April 14, 2009

Anonymous wrote :

Who is saving the whales while Greenpeace is trying to tackle alternative energy?

8:24 pm April 14, 2009

InTheRealWorld wrote :

"Nuclear plants are sitting ducks for terrorists." Negative. Terrorists would be dead ducks.

8:59 pm April 14, 2009

gofer wrote :

They don't have the faintest idea. Their function is fundraising which they spend over 25% of what they have already fraudraised. It's the high of arrogance and ignorance and they have no idea of what it would take to replace coal and to have all this "clean" energy. Denmark has more windmills than anybody and they increased their coal-fired use by 17% and their emissions. They admit it's a boondoggle. The greenpeace types don't care if it works or not because that is not the real goal. I'm still waiting on somebody to tell us what the "ideal" temperature is and why!!! If you can't state that, then everything else is fruitless.

A doubling of CO2 would increase production of plants by a third. Mine safety tops CO2 out at 5000 ppm. THere is no drawbacks for increased CO2. Plants start to suffer in the low 200ppm and greenhouses are injected with CO2 to grow stronger healther plants. Attacking CO2 is attacking life itself and, of course, that is the real goal of the enviro-nuts.

10:41 pm April 14, 2009

kerry bradshaw wrote :

Phil Radford is living in a dream world if he thinks "renewable" energies can accomplish anything at anywhere near a price we can afford. Not one single alternative energy technology has the ability tio replace one single dispatchable power plant. Nor does "renewability" mean much of anything. Renewables such as biofuels are atrocious means of making small amounts of power at a huge cost in terms of land, water and, in the end, are producing tons of CO2 in the process. Wind power has zero ability to meet peak demand and is 4 to6 times more expensive to build than nuclear. Nuclear is clearly the only advanced method of producing power on demand and produces it at reasonable costs (roughly 5 to 6 cents per kilowatthour - which includes all the funds required for both decomissioning and waste storage).
So just how serious should we take Radford's anti-nuke agenda? First he declares that terrorists can attack nuclear plants - why they would want to do so remains a mystery and how they would succeed in
disabling 3rd gen passive safety measure he fails to mention. Securing a nuclear plant is the simplest thing
in the world - both physically and electronically. Plants can easily be shut down remotely even if a group were able to gain physical control. And just why Radford thinks that our rejection of nuclear plants will have the slightest efect on those living elsewhere remains quite a mystery - not to mention a brainless argument.
For some strange reason, anti-nukes believe that our not building nuclear planyts will determine whether others do. I've got big news - it won't. So what exactly does Radford think he is accomplishing by removing new US power plants. Not to mention the fact that they ALREADY exist (over a 100 in the US alone).
I think we can all agree that Radford's arguments simply make no logical sense. Those "renewable" energy sources that are not carbon producing (like biofuels) are of little or no value, produce completely unreliable power at high cost and cannot lead to the replacement of a single fossil fuel plant. Radford's anti-nuke propaganda is both implausible and preposterously simpleminded. We also all know that it was the anti-nukes who created the conditions for excessive carbon emissions in this country when coal plants were substituted for those planned nuclear plants that were cancelled after Three Mile Island and the anti-nuke hysteria of the 1970's. THESE are the people responsible for global warming. So exactly why is Radford denying this fact and continuing to argue for technologies that clearly are useless in fighting global warming? Fortunately the rest of the world is paying no attention to small minds lie radford's - over 350 nuclear plants are in the planning or building stage. All of which makes a mockery of radford's arrogant claim that the world will follow the lead of his anti-nuke Americans. They don't even know the Radfords of this world exist, and if they did, would totally ignore them. Even previously anti-nuke German citizens are now solidly behind new nuclear plants. Only relics from the 1970s like Radford keep up the drumbeat of lies, misinformation and fear mongering. Sorry, Phil, but we're not buying your fear peddling these days.

10:54 pm April 14, 2009

NSTELL wrote :

Gofer, I loved you in CaddyShack and CaddyShack 2. Global Warming is a problem, you may not exactly understand the science behind it, but it is time to stop taking spoon fed information from the Sean Hannity's of the world and to start paying attention to the scientific community. I wish i could tell you an exact ideal temperature and keep people like you quiet, but that isn't exactly what Global warming is about. Curbing emissions will help us to avoid temperature extremes like heat waves that have at times caused thousands of deaths(Europe 2003). Curbing emissions will help to protect eco-systems world wide and work to prevent the bleaching of our oceans coral reefs(research this one it is a doozy).The use of Clean efficient renewable energy is a solution that will not only create jobs and stimulate the economy, but it is the fastest way to address this pressing issue. We need to implement solutions that are quick to get results, safe(no nukes or coal), and will encourage research in even better technology that will power and protect this planet for years to come.

3:11 am April 15, 2009

pkatt wrote :

So let me get this straight. You are advocating massive land and habitat distruction for the construction solar and wind farms in lew of the current system of power we have in place? What happened to Greenpeace?

3:17 am April 15, 2009

Rod Adams - Atomic Insights wrote :

One of the stated reasons that Patrick Moore left Greenpeace is that he became disenchanted with a group that rarely fights FOR anything, but instead focuses its resources on activities that attract large donations.

It is rarely discussed, but there is good money available in the business of opposition - established competitors will often contribute and lend political support to campaigns that slow the introduction of new technology. Steel companies often support anti-plastics campaigns, existing retailers pay to fight Wal-Mart, waterfront property owners pay for action to impose set-backs that do not apply to existing development, railroads pay to impose costly rules on trucking (and vice versa), the aluminum can producers pay to denigrate plastic bottles, political campaigns pay for negative efforts against their opposition, etc.

The biggest battle of all - because of the TRILLIONS involved - is the struggle over energy market share. When the US nuclear power industry was starting up 8-12 new nuclear plants per year, each one was reducing the need to burn fossil fuels by about 22 billion BTU's per year (roughly 3.5-4 million barrels of oil equivalent). The prospect of continued loss of market share must have been very scary to the established fossil fuel industry.

That industry that had been deeply tied into the political, industrial and media worlds for many decades. The leaders of that industry were very sharp and combative and individually and collectively took effective action to tie up the new competition in knots.

Greenpeace, Sierra, UCS, NIRS, Public Citizen, PIRG, NRDC, Clamshell and the countless local groups might have been populated with visible, vocal, impassioned volunteers, but at least some of the money supporting their "non-profit" efforts over a sustained 35-40 years period came directly from the establishment a large portion of which gets its wealth and power from dealing in fossil fuels of one type or another.

Pew, Rockefeller, and Ford are all foundations with long and deep ties to fossil fuel interests. The charitable giving arms of many utilities, fossil fuel companies, railroads (moving fossil fuel is a major revenue source), pipeline companies and shipping companies have all donated at various times to the groups whose common interest is slowing the development and increasing the cost of nuclear power to a point where it does not dominate the marketplace, despite its obvious advantages. (Reliability, low pollution, low cost heat source, good jobs for decades, strong anchor for local tax base, ability to store decades worth of fuel on site, export market opportunities, highly trained work force, well behaved workers who raise strong families, etc.)

Does it sound crazy to suggest that most vocal anti-nuclear groups have interests that are aligned with fossil fuel companies - sure.

However, please give it some thought. Consider the fact that SOME people do not always reveal their hole cards, SOME people profess support to colleagues while sticking a knife in their back at every opportunity, and SOME people who lead "non-profit" groups live high carbon consumption lifestyles that includes luxurious offices, air travel to international conferences, high profile, high speed chases on the open ocean, and weeks long stays at resort areas for retreats.

Then ask yourself, is it really so far fetched to assert that the old mystery novel concept of means, motive and opportunity point to an anti-nuclear cooperation between fossil fuel interests and activists that make ineffective gestures against fossil fuels while successfully hampering nuclear fission power development?

5:36 am April 15, 2009

Charles Barton wrote :

Phil Radford has some mighty stange ideas about what is clean energy. For some strange reason Greenpeace has green washed CO2 emitting natural gas fired power plants and advocates building hundreds of new natural gas plants over the next 20 years, at the same time it shuts down carbon free reactors. Redford recites a bunch of bumper sticker slogans for his anti-nuclear stance, but offers no serious explanation for his profoundly irrational ideas.

7:02 am April 15, 2009

John V wrote :

Mr. Radford is in the business of being non-progressional. We as a country have sat on our behinds at the whim of the minority liberals. Now we are paying big for it with a lack of jobs due to cuts in technology, industry, energy and exploration, these groups use radical tactics to scare the general public, Greenpeace members of yesteryear now actually embrace nuclear power as a means to cut carbon emissions. It is too bad that these groupd have to scare and lie to the public over their radical views.

7:07 am April 15, 2009

John V wrote :

The key to understanding the hysteria that was generated by nuclear is a psychological theory called the "availability heuristic". That's not to say this is the only or best theory about why people exaggerate their fears of unlikely events like accidents at a nuclear plant. Instead, the availability heuristic is important because it is the pet theory of the social scientists at NWPO and has actually become the means of imprinting nuclear fears and hysteria on the population of the USA. If the availability heuristic was at one point an attempt to provide an academic theory of the underlying causes of mass fear, in the context of nuclear power it became a tool for creating the impression that educating the public about real risks would be impossible in the face of this all-powerful psychological juggernaut.

The crude interpretation of the availability heuristic, i.e. fear sells, has a corollary in the nuclear power debate. If fear sells, it is then easier to sell fear than to educate the public about the true nature of the risks that confront them. It was this inverted form of the availability heuristic which became the driving dogma behind the socioeconomic studies sponsored by NWPO. That is, instead of studying how unwarranted fears of nuclear technology could be overcome, NWPO used Slovic's theories of fear, encapsulated in the availability heuristic, to enhance fear!

10:27 am April 15, 2009

David Ahlport wrote :

The actual reason Patrick Moore left GreenPeace is that he lost a bid for a leadership position, and then sued the winner.
And since then, for the past 3 decades, he's been shilling for any industry which needs to appear less dirty than they truly are.

10:53 am April 15, 2009

Anonymous wrote :

I'm glad Radford and Greenpeace figured out our alternative energy plans for the future. Now I hope they can cure cancer and world poverty next.

11:15 am April 15, 2009

enough wrote :

More global warming nonsense. A retort:

1) There is no solid scientific evidence (computer models don’t count) that man has casued global warming.
2) 2008 was the coldest year on record in the past decade.
3) Even if man is the cause of global warming, there have been no sceintific studies that show it will be the end of the world or even that harmful (the worst case senarios involve mass migrations of humans, which is more feasible than the world stopping use of hydrocarbons).

and finally

4) Even if man is the cause of global warming, it would be a worldwide problem and any unilateral effort of the United State will have absolutely no effect. In fact unless the entire world stops polluting CO2 100%, we will still have global warming, so any reduction is pointless.

11:30 am April 15, 2009

Bene wrote :

This guy's an idiot. I love how greenies so quickly dismiss coal as if it's just a fleck in the sand in the power production system. get real. spending money on clean coal is just as important a goal as spending money on trying to figure out how to store energy from wind and solar farms so they're more efficient. the answer isn't just one source--its a combination. greenie's destroy their valid points when they use irrational arguments like "CCS is a distraction." classic emotional response. clean environment = religion for these people.

1:27 pm April 15, 2009

Joffan wrote :

Greenpeace could make a huge statement on how important global warming is, by accepting the need for nuclear power. I think that kind of course change would be the single most effective thing they could do to make people realize how serious the situation is. Nuclear power's need for disciplined controls is a really minor issue in comparison to whole-atmosphere carbon dioxide levels.

The US simply cannot offload the low-carbon 20% of its electricity generation that nuclear provides, and energy-poor parts of the world need that kind of power even more. Calling coal research a fantasy only points up the anti-nuclear fantasy in current Greenpeace dogma.

2:01 pm April 15, 2009

David Ahlport wrote :

The trick there being that

A. The federal money spend on nuclear waste and anti-proliferation, gigantically dwarfs all total federal spending on Energy
B. Nuclear can't provide it's own private capital financing
C. Nuclear provides very little of it's own R&D financing
C. The citing + construction of Nuclear power plants is very slow (i.e. Next batch of US reactors aren't expected until 11 years from now, at the earliest.)

Nuclear is only a viable option if Time and Money aren't considered to be important.

_

As for the practicality of CCS
We're talking about the prospect of creating a cyrogenically frozen liquid pipeline, that has to transport a volume larger than entire US oil pipeline infrastructure. That also cuts down the efficiency of the power plant it comes from by 20%.
The type of money you'd need to create the infrastructure for that type of program would be insane.

And once again, CCS is only viable if Time and Money aren't important

_

That said, I can agree that it makes no sense to close the Nuclear reactors we already have.
That however is entirely different from proposing building new ones on the taxpayers dime.

2:47 pm April 15, 2009

Ed wrote :

He's wrong with respect to nuclear. Just hope he figures that out before it's too late.

3:00 pm April 15, 2009

librat2003 wrote :

It seems to me that the real drawback of global warming is simple and not very arguable. Temperature increases over time definitively decrease the amount of fresh water available. This effects mere mortals because we need fresh water to survive, to water our crops and for most of our industrial processes. Massive crop failures put the price of staples out of the reach of many people in the world. Eventually food and water crises precipitate violent struggle over those resources that are necessary for life. This is good news for our arms industry, but not for pretty much anyone else. Enlightened self interest in this case is clear, we do what is necessary to avoid temperature spikes that have the potential to seriously test human adaptability.

3:04 pm April 15, 2009

wtf??? wrote :

librat2003: Please explain how global warming decreases the amount of fresh water on land. And don't say because the ice caps melt, because the huge amount of fresh water in the polar ice caps is already out of the water cycle.

3:23 pm April 15, 2009

librat2003 wrote :

To WTF??? Rising temperatures exacerbate the loss of fresh water storage on mountains because of a rising altitude line. Because of increased evaporation we see enhanced depletion of lakes and aquifers during the dry season. If you need a real world example, look at the case of Kenya and the serious impacts that warming and diminishing mountain based water supply has already caused there in relation to livestock and agricultural production. I live in a city that is served primarily by a watershed that's linked to a specific mountain. It's very clean water that hardly has to be treated, the other major source that municipalities have to pull from in this area is a Superfund designated river. Diminished returns from the mountain watershed means pulling more water from the river with the associated costs of purifying that water. That's a simple example of rational costs from far away and from my backyard. If you don't see the logic in that, we might be speaking different languages, and that's ok.

3:51 pm April 15, 2009

wtf??? wrote :

"Rising temperatures exacerbate the loss of fresh water storage on mountains because of a rising altitude line" I'm sorry, but that's one of the most ridiculuous arguements that I have every heard on global warming.

"If you need a real world example, look at the case of Kenya and the serious impacts that warming and diminishing mountain based water supply has already caused there in relation to livestock and agricultural production." Whatever problem there is, if there is indeed a problem, is not due to global warming.

There is no science or credible scientific studies to back up any of your claims.

To wtf??? Obviously, you're right. Reduced glaciation and snowpack have nothing to do with fresh water supplies. I understand the ridiculousness of my position. It's not true, because you say so. Fair. Point taken. Consider me chastized. Obviously the IPCC is not credible enough for you, and only the science that fits with your worldview is credible. That's fine. Honestly though, we'll win because the vast majority of the American public can understand that less snow on the mountains is linked with water scarcity. It's not hard for them to understand this position because it seems practically correlated. The meme of Earth as an inexhaustible resource to be exploited is definitely dying out. As far as the war of ideas, we've already won it on the streets. Generational change is happening out there, and there are going to be big winners and losers in the next energy bill. You can go down with the ship of an epoch that's passed, complaining the whole time, or you can start recognizing the direction we're going and help steer.

5:32 pm April 15, 2009

Marquis de Sade wrote :

so... anyone with global warming denial info should do themselves a favor. check out http://www.exxonsecrets.org
find out the source of your info (either research group, politician or policy maker, campaigner) put it in the map search, and maybe, just maybe you'll be shocked at what you find. :)

librat2003: You need serious psycological help. I bet you are a member of scientology as well. There is no sense having a rational, sane conversation with you are clearly dilusional. Hope this helps.

6:11 pm April 15, 2009

realist wrote :

If man made global warming is real and the end of the world is near and we all are going to run out of water and die, then why are CO2 emissions legal? Why have the governments of the world not banned CO2 and all other greenhouse gas emissions? I don't understand, all the "studies" show that global warming is advancing at an alarming rate, it's irreversable, and a small change like 20-30% reduction will do nothing. So what's the deal?

6:22 pm April 15, 2009

Anonymous wrote :

the conversation about global warming really doesnt matter. No ammount of renewables will be as devastating to our health as coal has been in the past and is currently. Anyone who honestly decidedly avoids the effort for efficiency and reduction in consumption must be unaware that we 1. are now 7 billion people strong 2. have mercury in our bodies compliments coal 3. have ocean acidification rising which is real, proven and man-made 4. have mountains that are in fact being blown up to reach coal (consider also the transportation to and from, fly ash spills, etc) 5. have astronomically high asthma rates in coal burning communities (largely in china) 6. have documented proof that oil companies attempt to persuade the public that global warming is not real (real or not, they're playin' with ya (@ $90,000/min)) 7. are endlessly fighting a resource war across the globe for energy supplies that we could generate at home 8. are polluting. I can't stress 8 enough. Don't believe in global warming? awesome! Kid's in the bronx growing up with asthma would still appreciate you turning your light bulbs off when not in use and children in china would love to see wind turbines pop up in their backyards instead of a coal firing plant (which wind would provide more jobs for their parents as well). Anyone remember the dodo? We're losing species to extinction faster than when dinosaurs went extinct. USA has 4% of its original forests. That... is man-made. Scientists are now considering our period in time (like Jurassic) to be named after humans, because climate or not... we changed the planet. welcome to global weirding.

ummm... greenpeace is independent. member based. no corporate, political, govt $. so... if its yellow, let it mellow... then flush. oh, and your media sources use it as reference. you should look into it. I encourage. :)

6:53 pm April 15, 2009

librat2003 wrote :

It is obvious that I'm a scientologist from my post. That's a very rational assumption for you to make wtf??? Your keen observation that I need psychological help is also very astute and non delusional. I can tell from your posts so far that you are a shining example of the pinnacle of what a rational enlightened human being can be. Do you have anything constructive besides your ego to bring to the table?

7:56 pm April 15, 2009

Boston wrote :

As an educated American citizen, I listen to scientists on scientific issues. They are paid to make rational, objective assessments of our planet. What they say is that: global warming is an urgent issue; burning coal kills people; and nuclear waste is radioactive.

I stand with science, not with coal and nuclear companies.

12:24 am April 16, 2009

M. Simon wrote :

Global Warming did not cause thousands of deaths in Europe in 2003. Lack of air conditioning did. That and the fact that the French were off vacationing while the old folks died. However, it was a net gain to the system because it reduced the cost of socialized medicine.

Boston,

Lack of energy will kill more people than the radiation from coal plants. BTW did you ever consider that the goal of government owned scientists is to keep the government money coming? Suppose we are headed for a cooling period due to a lack of sun spots. How will the government scientists explain that?

12:27 am April 16, 2009

M. Simon wrote :

Anon,

It is true we are fighting resource wars and something needs to be done at once. How about substituting coal for oil.

3:05 pm April 16, 2009

Kipp Coddington wrote :

The viability of CCS as a technology depends on various factors, including the specific capture technology (pre- or post-combustion, for example), the economics of carbon management, and available data regarding the storage reservoir. While it is true that much work remains to be done, there is reason for optimism based upon projects such as Weyburn and Sleipner.

The US Department of Energy (DOE) is a good source of information. DOE, via its regional sequestration partnerships, is just starting up its so-called Phase III studies, which involve the injection of more than 1 million tons of CO2. And don't forget CO2-EOR, which they have been doing in the Permian Basin for decades. DOE estimates that CO2-EOR alone could store on the order of 7,500 million metric tons of CO2 between 2008 and 2030. For more details, see, e.g., http://www.netl.doe.gov/energy-analyses/pubs/Storing%20CO2%20w%20EOR_FINAL.pdf. If you want to take an early peek at CCS, go to Midland, Texas.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has proposed rules to regulate CCS, and many States are doing the same.

And Zurich has announced the availability of CCS insurance products.

CCS is moving ahead. Sure, there are and will be bumps in the road, but that could be said about the development of any technology. It would have been unwise to judge the future of commercial aviation by watching that first flight at Kitty Hawk in 1903.

1:07 am April 17, 2009

Jim Hopf wrote :

The govt. spends no money at all on commercial nuclear waste. All waste handling and storage is done (and paid for) by the utilities, and the repository is fully covered by a 0.1 cent/kW-hr fee on nuclear utilities. The govt. has actually been using that money on other things (as opposed to the repository), so govt. spending on nuclear waste is actually negative.

The govt. also doesn't pay anything for "nuclear power non-proliferation costs". The concept isn't even meaningful. The fact is that building more nuclear power plants in the US will have absolutely no impact on nuclear weapons proliferation. It will not require any action, or expense, by any party whatsoever, with respect to non-proliferation. Nuclear power plants also fully pay for all plant decommissioning costs.

As shown by the following govt. data, (in Table 35 on page 106 of Chapter 5):

renewables like solar and wind recieve over 20 times as much govt. subsidy as nuclear does, per unit of production. Govt. R&D funding for conservation and renewables also exceeds that for nuclear by ~50%.

Recent (Obama admin) policies make the situation even more extreme. In the stimulus bill, $100 billion in loan guarantees, as well as a lot of other types of subsidy, were specifically earmarked for non-hydro renewables (energy sources that produce one tenth as much power as nuclear does). A modest proposal to have an additional $50 billion be put out for fair, open competition among all non-emitting sources (including sequestered coal, nuclear and renewables) was blocked by "environmentalists". Even the chance to compete for a subsidy that is 1/20 the size that given to renewables (relatively speaking) was too much for them to allow.

This is their idea of "fair" competition. Massive subsidies for renewables only, and no help of any kind for nuclear. And, in case even those massive subsidies are not enough, outright mandates for the use of a certain amount of renewables, regardless of cost or practicality.

The best way to evaluate nuclear's competitiveness with other non-emitting sources is to simply tax or cap CO2 emissions, and let the free market decide what to build. But these are precisely the type of policies that nuclear opponents (like Mr. Ahlport) work assiduously to prevent. If they really thought renewables were more economic than nuclear, they would be willing to put it to a fair market test. Specifically, they would drop their support for massive renewables (only) subsidies and renewable portfolio standards, and instead support fair, objective, even-handed policies like cap-and-trade or a carbon tax.

1:29 am April 17, 2009

Jim Hopf wrote :

Boston,

Your right about coal, but the fact is the overwhelming majority of scientists and engineers support nuclear power. Also, virtually all scientific studies that quantify the overall public health and environmental risks and impacts of various energy sources (short term and loong term) conclude that nuclear's impacts are tiny compared to fossil fuels, and similar to those of renewable sources. One example of such studies is the European Commission's ExternE project (at http://www.externe.info/). Whereas coal plants cause 25,000 deaths every single year in the US alone (in addition to being the leading source of global warming), US nuclear plants have never had any measurable impact on public health.

Also, I have to say, your statement that "nuclear waste is radioactive", as an argument against nuclear seems to imply that you think that the only radioactive materials that exist on earth are created by the nuclear power or weapons industry. This, as opposed to understanding that we live in a (natural) sea of radiation, and that virtually all materials are radioactive (including most rocks, and most foods, like bannanas, etc..). Doesn't sou

1:30 am April 17, 2009

Jim Hopf wrote :

Boston,

Your right about coal, but the fact is the overwhelming majority of scientists and engineers support nuclear power. Also, virtually all scientific studies that quantify the overall public health and environmental risks and impacts of various energy sources (short term and loong term) conclude that nuclear's impacts are tiny compared to fossil fuels, and similar to those of renewable sources. One example of such studies is the European Commission's ExternE project (at http://www.externe.info/). Whereas coal plants cause 25,000 deaths every single year in the US alone (in addition to being the leading source of global warming), US nuclear plants have never had any measurable impact on public health.

Also, I have to say, your statement that "nuclear waste is radioactive", as an argument against nuclear seems to imply that you think that the only radioactive materials that exist on earth are created by the nuclear power or weapons industry. This, as opposed to understanding that we live in a (natural) sea of radiation, and that virtually all materials are radioactive (including most rocks, and most foods, like bannanas, etc..). Doesn't sound very educated to me.

Most of our radiation exposure comes from natural and medical sources. The nuclear power industry is only responsible for ~0.1% of the public's radiation exposure. Radioactive waste is, and will be, fully isolated from the environment and human contact (nuclear is the only industry that is required to demonstrate/prove complete isolation of it's waste products for as long as they remain hazardous). Even under the most severe repository leakage scenarios, the overall collective public exposure to radiation will remain a tiny fraction of their overall exposure. Even the most exposed individuals would not recieve a dose outside the range of natural background (and no health impacts from doses within this range have ever been measured). This is simply not a significant environmental issue/risk. It is a political creation.

1:47 am April 17, 2009

Jim Hopf wrote :

Kipp,

I would certainly agree that CCS should be given every chance to succeed. This includes ample reasearch funding, as well as taking no steps to block or abandon it.

That said, a lot of us have at least some impression that the promise of (future) CCS technology is being used as an excuse/argument to delay meaningful action on reducing CO2 emissions, or to allow the construction of non-sequestered coal plants in the near future. The notion of "capture-ready" coal plants, where free emissions are allowed "for now" with a vague promise of sequestration in the future is particularly galling.

If you really believe in the potential of this technology, you (and/or the coal industry) should be willing to put your money where your mouth is. You should be willing to agree to a significant CO2 tax, a cap-and-trade system with hard, legally-binding, declining CO2 emission limits (starting in the next few years), or a law that requires all new coal plants to capture their CO2, from day one. If not, many of us will doubt your sincerity. If this technology is expected within a reasonable time frame, then we should not be willing to sign up for new non-sequestered coal plants that will (surely) spew CO2 for the next 50 years or more. We can (and should) get by on other sources (pretty much anything other than coal) until CCS is ready.

I definitely believe that the govt. should not pick winners, among non-emitting sources. If CCS can be commercialized, it deserves a full chance to compete. What's unacceptable is abandoning CO2 limits if CCS comes late or doesn't work, under some notion that we MUST use coal. As for my personal opinion, as a nuclear advocate, I would relish the thought of competing with coal w/ CCS in a free, fair, economic competition. I have to confess I remain skeptical of its ability to (ever) compete with nuclear.

2:49 am April 17, 2009

Rod Adams - Atomic Insights wrote :

David Ahlport continues to deny the reality that private industry has already invested several billion dollars in efforts to prepare for new nuclear power plant construction. The NRC's new reactors web page indicates that it has docketed applications for 26 new reactors and has received letters indicating intent to apply from at least 5 more. As soon as an application gets docketed, the applicant starts paying the US Treasury $250 per bureaucrat hour spent in the review. However, the spending starts years before during the site investigation and application preparation. For the NRC to docket an application, it has to pass through a completeness review - the requirements lead to applications that consist of thousands of pages of verifiable information, each with several hours of engineering and technical review behind them.
Shaw Group, Areva, Westinghouse and Northrup Grumman have begun building factories IN THE US for major plant components.
The 11 year time frame that you quoted is reasonably close to true - from start to finish for a new nuclear project. The great news is that the clock started running on some projects as early as 2004, there should be new plants operating by 2016.
All that also ignores the entrepreneurial side of the business with companies like Hyperion, NuScale and PBMR that are working on much smaller units that will be able to serve completely new markets outside of the 1000 MWe+ central station power plant market. Hyperion and NuScale are venture funded entities.
Sure, there is some federal involvement. However, loan guarantees are NOT direct subsidies and probably will not result in any cost to the taxpayer as long as the government does its job and allows companies to build safe, reliable power sources without undue interference.
As Jim Hopf pointed out, the nuclear industry is paying its own way and giving back more to the taxpayers than it is asking for. Given a chance, we could do a lot better at making both clean, inexpensive power and lots of cash returns on investment.
Rod Adams
Publisher, Atomic Insights
Host and producer, The Atomic Show Podcast
Founder, Adams Atomic Engines, Inc.

5:26 pm April 17, 2009

Rob Young wrote :

As an ExxonMobil employee it is personally disappointing to hear people falsely characterize us as opposing any effort to tackle climate change. Like many people we take the issue of climate change seriously and the risks warrant action. And we are taking action: in fact steps we have taken in our operations since 2005 have resulted in reductions in greenhouse gas emissions of more than 7 million tons in 2008, the equivalent of taking 1.4 million cars off the roads in the United States. And in terms of thought leadership our Chairman has publicly detailed our support for a tax on carbon as the most efficient, simplest and transparent measure to tackle the risk posed by rising greenhouse emissions. These are just a few examples of the actions we are taking to address climate change. You can read about all of the initiatives we are undertaking at http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_speeches_20090217_rwt.aspx

Add a Comment

Error message

Name

We welcome thoughtful comments from readers. Please comply with our guidelines. Our blogs do not require the use of your real name.

Comment

About Environmental Capital

Environmental Capital provides daily news and analysis of the shifting energy and environmental landscape. The Wall Street Journal’s Keith Johnson is the lead writer. Environmental Capital is led by Journal energy reporter Russell Gold, and includes contributions from other writers at the Journal, WSJ.com, and Dow Jones Newswires. Write us at environmentalcapital@wsj.com.